ORDER In this Rule, an order dated May 31, 1982 passed in Misc. Appeal No 204 of 1981 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan in affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in H.RC. (Misc. Case) 15/79 is under challenge. It appears that the petitioners made an application under S. 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act before the said Rent Controller, Burdwan for necessary direction for repair of the disputed premises on the allegation that the said applicants were tenants and the premises required repairing by the landlord opposite parties. It is alleged by the case that the predecessor in-interest of the applicant Madhusudan Roy was a tenant and after the death of the said Madhusudan Roy, the applicants being the legal representatives have become the tenants and at the time of making construction about the disputed premises, serious crack, appeared which required immediate repairing The landlord opposite parties agreed to effect repairs and had, in fact, started such repairing work but abandoned such reparing and despite request, the same could not be effected. The opposite parties however, disputed the contention of the applicants and it was contended by the opposite parties that Madhusudan Roy was a tenant under the opposite parties but he had voluntarily surrendered the tenancy on condition of getting remission of arrears of rent and thereafter be had left the premise. The landlords thereafter, had been in occupation of the disputed premises and after that they held effected substantial repair work and made construction to their liking. It was therefore, contended that the applicants had no locus standi to make the said application under S 34 of the Act and in any event, no repair work was necessary in respect of the disputed premises. 2 It appears that the Rent Controller appointed one Mr. A K. Das the Enquiry Officer and the said officer inspected the premises and submitted a report to the effect that the app1icants were not tenants under the opposite parties and their predecessor-in-interest had surrendered the tenancy He had also submitted that the premises in question did not require any repairing work. The said report was accepted by the Rent Contro1Jer and the application was dismissed, with costs - hearing fee being assessed at Rs. 15/. 3. Against the said order, the applicants preferred the Misc. The said report was accepted by the Rent Contro1Jer and the application was dismissed, with costs - hearing fee being assessed at Rs. 15/. 3. Against the said order, the applicants preferred the Misc. Appeal No. 204 of 1981 and by the impugned order dated May 31, 1982, the said appeal was dismissed. 4. It has, been contended by the petitioner in this instant application that the Rent Controller as also the appellate authority exceeded their jurisdiction and had purported to decide the title between the parties namely the existence or otherwise of the tenancy right as claimed by the applicants. It has been contended further that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority had a limited jurisdiction under the provisions of S. 34 and they had no right to determine the right, title and interest of the parties It has also been contended that it is not necessary to remain in actual physical possession of the disputed premises and if the room is kept under lock and key, it must be held that the tenant is exercising constructive possession of the said premises Learned Counsel has contended that it is the specific crise of the application that the shop room needed immediate repairing work because dangerous cracks appeared and precisely for the said reason, it was not possible for the applicants to physically occupy the said room and it had been kept under lock and key He has also submitted that over the right of tenancy and the alleged interference with the possession of the tenants, some other disputes arose but because of the specific finding or the Rent Controller and the appellate authority that Madbusudan Roy had surrendered tenancy the petitioners have suffered serious prejudice and their right to tenancy is likely to be prejudiced. 5. It is true that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority exercise limited jurisdiction under S. 34 of the Act and the scope of the adjudication under S. 34 is also limited The adjudication of the Rent Controller is not really an adjudication of title between the parties. But for the purpose of deciding the maintainability of the application under S 34 of the Act, it may be necessary for the Rent Controller to decide as to whether or not such application has been made by a tenant in possession. But for the purpose of deciding the maintainability of the application under S 34 of the Act, it may be necessary for the Rent Controller to decide as to whether or not such application has been made by a tenant in possession. Incidentally therefore, the question whether the applicant is a tenant is possession is required to be decided by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority should be treated as the adjudication of fact limited for the purpose of disposal of the said application under s. 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the same should not be treated as a final determination of the right of tenancy as claimed by the applicant. If the applicants intend to establish such right in a declaratory suit before the competent Civil Court, the applicants will be at liberty to establish the existence of such tenancy right. It is made clear that the incidental adjudication about the surrender of tenancy for disposing of the application to establish the alleged tenancy before a competent civil court With these observations, the rule is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Rule dismissed.